If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
No big deal, but at the end of a very long flight it was more work
than I needed. As my flight instructor used to say, consider it a "character building exercise". -- jr |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
snipped a bunch of good stuff What type of aircraft were you flying?
'74 Piper Pathfinder -- PA28-235. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
On 16 Mar 2007 18:58:53 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30. Yeah, well he should have canceled your landing clearance, or at least communicated with you. Or, if you couldn't accept a delay in your clearance (and a medical emergency is as valid as a mechanical emergency), you should have communicated with him. He knew he had a student pilot so was giving him priority, I guess (can't be sure without reading his mind). Unless you ask him (and I'd do that on the ground), you can't really be sure of all the nuances of the situation. At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it works out. Sometimes not shrug. I get that frequently going into KASH, which has a lot of student activity. Most of the time it works out with me doing slow flight and waiting for the the a/c ahead to land; sometimes I request a 360 for spacing; and rarely I'll get a go-around (usually from a controller who doesn't realize how slowly I can fly my Mooney). --ron |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30. What was your position at the time? Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying.... Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots. He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's 3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far out were you when he touched down? Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway. Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice" -- as if he does this all day long. If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you? Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my tongue as I dutifully went around. The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in. Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the Midwest. It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it. The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less capable people in the near future. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message ... You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le pousser oł le soleil ne brille pas. Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using the RUNWAY. Actually it is planes on final that have the right of way, but that's irrelevant here as it was a controlled field. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:58:26 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
wrote: At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it works out. Sometimes not shrug. The controllers at one of the local Class D airports in southeast Florida have a reputation for being rather cautious--and not doing that. (That's a deliberate understatement, although there some extenuating circumstances--including a high volume of IFR traffic.) I strongly suspect that many (perhaps most) pilots pilots usng that airport would be much happier with a quicker flow of traffic and more frequent go-arounds. It's places like BOS and other big city airports where the practice is common. I've been in situations where I've not been given a landing clearance until the runway was clear. I've also been in a situation where I was flying a Cessna 150 cleared to land 15 hold short of Rwy 5 -- This was just after clearances to land had been issued to a KC-135 for RWY 5; and a C-130 for Rwy 33!! (The C-130 was practicing downwind landings). --ron |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it works out. Sometimes not shrug. The controllers at one of the local Class D airports in southeast Florida have a reputation for being rather cautious--and not doing that. (That's a deliberate understatement, although there some extenuating circumstances--including a high volume of IFR traffic.) I strongly suspect that many (perhaps most) pilots pilots usng that airport would be much happier with a quicker flow of traffic and more frequent go-arounds. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1174096733.803538.270650
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: Clearly the controller either made a mistake or is a dolt. Either way, a few good S-Turns would have saved you some gas and turbulence. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30. What was your position at the time? Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe two? He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's 3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far out were you when he touched down? Probably 1/2 mile. If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you? There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, but the controller should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did neither. It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it. The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less capable people in the near future. I doubt it, but we'll see. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A tower-induced go-round
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message ups.com... Yeah, I thought about doing a 360, but it was so danged gusty that turning at low altitude was very uncomfortable. (More for the family than for me, of course.) Aeronautical Information Manual Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures Chapter 4. Air Traffic Control Section 3. Airport Operations 4-3-5. Unexpected Maneuvers in the Airport Traffic Pattern There have been several incidents in the vicinity of controlled airports that were caused primarily by aircraft executing unexpected maneuvers. ATC service is based upon observed or known traffic and airport conditions. Controllers establish the sequence of arriving and departing aircraft by requiring them to adjust flight as necessary to achieve proper spacing. These adjustments can only be based on observed traffic, accurate pilot reports, and anticipated aircraft maneuvers. Pilots are expected to cooperate so as to preclude disrupting traffic flows or creating conflicting patterns. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. On occasion it may be necessary for pilots to maneuver their aircraft to maintain spacing with the traffic they have been sequenced to follow. The controller can anticipate minor maneuvering such as shallow "S" turns. The controller cannot, however, anticipate a major maneuver such as a 360 degree turn. If a pilot makes a 360 degree turn after obtaining a landing sequence, the result is usually a gap in the landing interval and, more importantly, it causes a chain reaction which may result in a conflict with following traffic and an interruption of the sequence established by the tower or approach controller. Should a pilot decide to make maneuvering turns to maintain spacing behind a preceding aircraft, the pilot should always advise the controller if at all possible. Except when requested by the controller or in emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the controller. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Round Engines | john smith | Piloting | 20 | February 15th 07 03:31 AM |
induced airflow | buttman | Piloting | 3 | February 19th 06 04:36 AM |
Round Engines | Voxpopuli | Naval Aviation | 16 | May 31st 05 06:48 PM |
Source of Induced Drag | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 2 | January 10th 04 12:18 AM |
Predicting ground effects on induced power | Marc Shorten | Soaring | 0 | October 28th 03 11:18 AM |